So Happy!!!!

[Boca]

Alienware ?  ::)

Don't be sucked in by flashy PC cases. It's what's under the hood that counts. Build your own system like I did and you'll be far more satisfied with it, plus, you'll get WHAT you want for far less money and not what some marketing director THINKS you want.

Alienware ? Wouldn't go near it.  Don't get me wrong. It's not rubbish, but it's not all it's cracked up to be either.

[Double_Farvel]

When I said that FSX does not even compare with this, I was referring to its appearance on my computer only. I would love to have some super rig where I could max everything out and maybe in the future I will. I meant that I am currently happy with FS9 on my computer because on my old computer, it did not look nearly this good.

[ashaman]

Ashaman, you are right. fsx looks horrible on an above average machine if you get good framerates. The rumors of a patch for fsx are true. look very closely at the bottom of the fsx: adrenaline page and you will see "patch to be released april/may. it is covered up by other text though. how nice of uncle bill. Whether the patch will do anything or not is still another question.

As for the patch, don't work your hopes up. First, it's still uncertain it will be published. Second, please remember that for FS2000 was released a performance patch too. I'm not joking. Shame that that patch did NOTHING to improve performances and in some cases the performances, after the installation of said patch, worsened.

No offence, my friend, but this is utter rubbish.



Look to the future, my friend. You're statement belongs in the past.

No offense and no rubbish. I remember FS2004 worked well enough on a PC the half powerful of my actual (not as well as on the actual rig, of course, but it sufficed taking away the 3d clouds to have a sim that was mostly as fast as FS2002).

What do you have to take off to be able to use "the cross" almost as well as FS9? In my case I'd have to return to the same details of FS98. A great step forward indeed, "the cross" is.

Look to the future? I am. I'm looking towards FS11. "The cross" I have crossed. I should lose my time NOW after a sim that'll be usable in 5~7 years FROM NOW?

...memories of FS2000... that NOW we can use, but at the times was a source of curses all day long... for others I remained behind to look at smirking while I flew on a perfectly working FS98... "the cross" == Fs2000 V1.5 indeed...

My statement might belong in the past, but MY MONEY BELONGS TO THE PRESENT. If they accept a statement that I'll pay them in the future, when "the cross" will be actually usable (Estimated Time of Usability: 5~7 years from now), I might consider "the cross", now. If not (as it's hell-assured it wont), maybe FS11 will be better for me AT THE VERY MOMENT I'LL BUY IT, and not after from 5 to 7 years, like FS2000 V1 and V1.5.

Those guys in Redmont really need someone to tell them to stop playing that much at golf and synchronize themselves to real life. They're falling behind.

No offense again, but they'll get another thing coming.

Not for me. Nope.

[Rocket_Bird]

Nice shots!

FSX graphics look pretty good id say if theres a good enough system to run it.  Yet I have yet to see any screenshot that necessarily looks "better" than FS9 except for the fact that the water looks more wavery.  It seems to me that max FS9 and Max FSX results in similar graphic quality.  I guess its close to being as real as it can get...

[Brett_Henderson]

My cousin just built an E6600 / 8800GTX machine for just over $1500, and it puts a pretty good dent in FSX.

For a couple hundred more, you could make that an E6800 machine that would do even better.. maybe $1800 total.

Now we all know that that $1800 machine will be able to be built for $1200 by years end and at that time $2500 (not much at all, for a gamimg computer) will buy you a computer that will run FSX very well.

All this 5-7 year talk.. and the $5000 talk is nonsense.

FS9 was WAY over a year old before (at the time) a $2000 computer would run it well.

TRying to run FSX on a Athlon2400/6600 ( a CPU that was old BEFORE FS9 came out), is silliness.

[Boca]

My cousin just built an E6600 / 8800GTX machine for just over $1500, and it puts a pretty good dent in FSX.

For a couple hundred more, you could make that an E6800 machine that would do even better.. maybe $1800 total.

Now we all know that that $1800 machine will be able to be built for $1200 by years end and at that time $2500 (not much at all, for a gamimg computer) will buy you a computer that will run FSX very well.

All this 5-7 year talk.. and the $5000 talk is nonsense.

FS9 was WAY over a year old before (at the time) a $2000 computer would run it well.

TRying to run FSX on a Athlon2400/6600 ( a CPU that was old BEFORE FS9 came out), is silliness.

Wise words. Thats exactly what I'm saying. These people would bleat if it was much the same as Fs9, but, because their current feeble computers can't run FSX, they get all upset.  :-?  Software requirements have always pushed technology, not the other way around, and , as you say, and I did also about 8 posts back, we WILL have computers to run it in not too long a time.
     To the people complaining about it's currently unsupported ( but soon to be ) features and big PC-power requirements, I would say "if you want to live in the past, stick with Fs9. But stop moaning just because other people have access to a game YOU don't have the hardware for.  Either get a better job and buy a better system, or sit down and learn how to build one yourself. ( it's surprisingly easy)  And, if you're building a system on the cheap, ..ie...AMD 2000XP with a DirectX8 or 9 only capable GC, then you're not using your head and planning for the future, therefore can't and don't deserve to run a game like Fsx. "
   As  I said before,  Fs9 is one of the very FEW 2003 games still around that looks cutting edged today, and that's because it was built with the future in mind.  You'll be able to re-write that sentence in 2010 about FSX and that's the way it should be.

[ashaman]

My cousin just built an E6600 / 8800GTX machine for just over $1500, and it puts a pretty good dent in FSX.

For a couple hundred more, you could make that an E6800 machine that would do even better.. maybe $1800 total.

Now we all know that that $1800 machine will be able to be built for $1200 by years end and at that time $2500 (not much at all, for a gamimg computer) will buy you a computer that will run FSX very well.

All this 5-7 year talk.. and the $5000 talk is nonsense.

FS9 was WAY over a year old before (at the time) a $2000 computer would run it well.

TRying to run FSX on a Athlon2400/6600 ( a CPU that was old BEFORE FS9 came out), is silliness.

Wise words. Thats exactly what I'm saying. These people would bleat if it was much the same as Fs9, but, because their current feeble computers can't run FSX, they get all upset.  :-?  Software requirements have always pushed technology, not the other way around, and , as you say, and I did also about 8 posts back, we WILL have computers to run it in not too long a time.
     To the people complaining about it's currently unsupported ( but soon to be ) features and big PC-power requirements, I would say "if you want to live in the past, stick with Fs9. But stop moaning just because other people have access to a game YOU don't have the hardware for.  Either get a better job and buy a better system, or sit down and learn how to build one yourself. ( it's surprisingly easy)  And, if you're building a system on the cheap, ..ie...AMD 2000XP with a DirectX8 or 9 only capable GC, then you're not using your head and planning for the future, therefore can't and don't deserve to run a game like Fsx. "
   As  I said before,  Fs9 is one of the very FEW 2003 games still around that looks cutting edged today, and that's because it was built with the future in mind.  You'll be able to re-write that sentence in 2010 about FSX and that's the way it should be.

First; I'm not moaning. If you start singing praise to an half-assed software I find, as already stated, half assed, I'm going to tell my point of view.

I still can, right? Or should I feel threatened by the CIA for having told mine against the latest botched attempt at software from the great and mighty M$ now? :-?

Or perhaps you feel I'm moaning because I'm not conforming to the masses and to your ideas?

You have no idea how similar the points you "the cross" admirers make are to the points that were made by those who wanted to use FS2000 at any cost (even their sanity), back in the days. Hence you don't dent my resolve. I've seen it all before. Been there. Got the T-shirt.

Not following you to the slaughter.



Second; It's incredibly easy to talk about spending the money of others. I should buy a more powerful PC, when the actual is more than enough powerful for my needs, only to make "the cross" happy?

Please.

I'll do it maybe (and remains a maybe) the very day money will be available freely on the trees.


Third; I, should be deserving of "the cross"? On which planet were you born, by the way? I am the one who pays, HENCE is "the cross" that MUST deserve me. Let us not confuse who's the Master and who's the slave, please.



In the end, the REAL end of this discussion, you are free to waste your time, money and efforts after whatever you like.

And I feel free not to.

Like I feel free not to be silent about it. And if you feel that my discordant-from-the-masses' voice is moaning, all the worse for you.

End. Of. The. Discussion.

See you on another thread.

[Brett_Henderson]

You can have all the opinions you like.. and I'll respect them. Nobobdy is compelling you to run FSX, or buy the computer needed.

Just go easy on the mis-information.

I was here for every version of FS.. heard all the moaning, went through all the upgrading. Keeping your computer up to date, hardware-wise is no waste of money. There are other things that a PC is taxed by too. One to two years is all you can hope for out of

[Daube]

As for the patch, don't work your hopes up. First, it's still uncertain it will be published. Second, please remember that for FS2000 was released a performance patch too. I'm not joking. Shame that that patch did NOTHING to improve performances and in some cases the performances, after the installation of said patch, worsened.




No offense and no rubbish. I remember FS2004 worked well enough on a PC the half powerful of my actual (not as well as on the actual rig, of course, but it sufficed taking away the 3d clouds to have a sim that was mostly as fast as FS2002).

What do you have to take off to be able to use "the cross" almost as well as FS9? In my case I'd have to return to the same details of FS98. A great step forward indeed, "the cross" is.

Look to the future? I am. I'm looking towards FS11. "The cross" I have crossed. I should lose my time NOW after a sim that'll be usable in 5~7 years FROM NOW?

...memories of FS2000... that NOW we can use, but at the times was a source of curses all day long... for others I remained behind to look at smirking while I flew on a perfectly working FS98... "the cross" == Fs2000 V1.5 indeed...

My statement might belong in the past, but MY MONEY BELONGS TO THE PRESENT. If they accept a statement that I'll pay them in the future, when "the cross" will be actually usable (Estimated Time of Usability: 5~7 years from now), I might consider "the cross", now. If not (as it's hell-assured it wont), maybe FS11 will be better for me AT THE VERY MOMENT I'LL BUY IT, and not after from 5 to 7 years, like FS2000 V1 and V1.5.

Those guys in Redmont really need someone to tell them to stop playing that much at golf and synchronize themselves to real life. They're falling behind.

No offense again, but they'll get another thing coming.

Not for me. Nope.

Ashaman, we've been discussing this matter very often, and I perfectly understand your point of view.
I understand that you are happy with what FS9 offers you, and you are not willing to jump to FSX. That's not a problem for anybody

The problem is when you make assertions like "FSX is FS2000 1.5" or stuff like that.
This kind of bullshit makes you look like a dumb, and just puts everybody on the nerves.

The fact is that FSX is FULL of new functionnalities that make it very far away from what an hypothetic FS2000 v1.5 would be.
Of course, some of those functionnalities have a deep impact on performances, and because you didn't want to tweak your FSX, you could not play it, you could not test it a you should, you could not enjoy the new stuff, so you still think FS9 is the same as FSX excepted for graphics.

My only question would be: Why did you accept to tweak your FS9, but don't want to tweak your FSX ?
Because, when FS9 was out, it was not playable excepted on very high-end machines... and still today, on a PC which is just a bit better than yours, I'm getting only 18 FPS in FS9 in some areas... So, why not tweaking FSX ?

PS: on a TODAY's high-end machine, FSX is running almost fine with no tweaking, and perfectly fine with tweaking.... just like FS9

[Brett_Henderson]

Good points.. FSX is a huge leap over FS9, in many ways, a completely different, better piece of software.

When you think about what FSX is and is capable of.. it's amazing that it only costs $70. My goodness, the opened-ended potential (especially for those of us designing planes (got a C177RG in the works)) is awe-inspiring  :)

[ashaman]

Ashaman, we've been discussing this matter very often, and I perfectly understand your point of view.
I understand that you are happy with what FS9 offers you, and you are not willing to jump to FSX. That's not a problem for anybody

The problem is when you make assertions like "FSX is FS2000 1.5" or stuff like that.
This kind of bullshit makes you look like a dumb, and just puts everybody on the nerves.

The fact is that FSX is FULL of new functionnalities that make it very far away from what an hypothetic FS2000 v1.5 would be.
Of course, some of those functionnalities have a deep impact on performances, and because you didn't want to tweak your FSX, you could not play it, you could not test it a you should, you could not enjoy the new stuff, so you still think FS9 is the same as FSX excepted for graphics.

My only question would be: Why did you accept to tweak your FS9, but don't want to tweak your FSX ?
Because, when FS9 was out, it was not playable excepted on very high-end machines... and still today, on a PC which is just a bit better than yours, I'm getting only 18 FPS in FS9 in some areas... So, why not tweaking FSX ?

PS: on a TODAY's high-end machine, FSX is running almost fine with no tweaking, and perfectly fine with tweaking.... just like FS9

I open again this matter only to answer you.

Each of us has his or her point of view, and going about calling people dumb because they don't conform to your point of view will not win you any sympathy points.

The extent of me "tweaking" FS9 on my old machine was to use the simple clouds and removing the file with the bugged autogen, and FS9 and went as well (almost) as FS2002.

On a today's TOP OF THE LINE MACHINE "the cross" goes well. Not the machines that simple common humans can afford.

So.

We're at point one.

I remain on my positions.


PS

Will you be so kind and list to a poor dumb what exactly are the so called new functionalities that deserve so much processing power? They went more or less over my head.

[Brett_Henderson]

Will you be so kind and list to a poor dumb what exactly are the so called new functionalities that deserve so much processing power? They went more or less over my head.

This cannot be a serious question ?

Short answer... everything.

More and better and more dense scenery; higher quality texturing and VCs; more realistic clouds, more dense and accurate mesh....

The whole thing is more realistic...

[Daube]

I open again this matter only to answer you.

Each of us has his or her point of view, and going about calling people dumb because they don't conform to your point of view will not win you any sympathy points.

Did I tell you were dumb ? No.
I said that the "assertion" you did made you look "dumb".
We all know here how much you participate in the FS9 section, and no one would tell you're dumb.

The extent of me "tweaking" FS9 on my old machine was to use the simple clouds and removing the file with the bugged autogen, and FS9 and went as well (almost) as FS2002.

On a today's TOP OF THE LINE MACHINE "the cross" goes well. Not the machines that simple common humans can afford.

When FS9 went out, I had one of those "machines that simple common humans can afford". Nevertheless, I could not play FS9 on full scenery

[Boca]

For what it's worth....I don't own FSX, as I don't believe I have a PC to run it at the moment.  ( AMD 3500+,  Nvidia XFX 7600GT ,  2Gb PC3200ddr RAM )... so I won't buy it till I feel I have a rig to run it. But I won't get at the people who DO have a rig to run it by decrying the game.
  I get more than enough enjoyment from my Fs9 for now. That will tide me over till I am able for FSX.  

[ashaman]

Will you be so kind and list to a poor dumb what exactly are the so called new functionalities that deserve so much processing power? They went more or less over my head.

This cannot be a serious question ?

My fault, next time I'll put the tags [rhetorical question]"phrase"[/rhetorical question].

Happy?

Problem, you see, is that whatever was done (that I repeat, WAS done) is not enough to justify the jump of hardware request. And please, do not begin arguing on the minimum requirements as from M$ mouth, that it's an offense to any and every intelligent being in this WHOLE galaxy arm.

Did I tell you were dumb ? No.
I said that the "assertion" you did made you look "dumb".
We all know here how much you participate in the FS9 section, and no one would tell you're dumb.

I thought long if and how to answer you on this point. I could get out of it making a cheesy comparison, but that's just not me.

Regardless of what you meant, some words just shouldn't be used in a polite contest.

I did not attack you nor anyone else. I only limited myself in repeating for the N-nth time how much I am disappointed with the simulator by me dubbed "the cross".

Disappointed, yes. Because you are free not to believe me, but I wished for something really good.

I stay disappointed.

When I compare "the cross" to FS2000, it's only on the hardware demand of this last in its times. If you were around at the time you'd remember. It was... exactly what "the cross" is now, in kind.

Unusable, a little step forward under some points and a big step on the side on other more important points.

In short? A transition. A transition no one will keep in any regard, once something better will come. Emphasis on "better".

By my point of view I feel you're free to follow "the cross" if you want. None of my business.

But really it gets on my nerves when people denies me to express how much disappointed I am with "the cross". And you people have been doing just this.

You've attacked FS9, because it's old, will be out of business soon and so on... have I reacted?

I don't remember a moment I've been hailing FS9 as the perfect simulator. I should be drunk, stoned and with a cerebral commotion going, to do so.

Have you? Or better, haven't you been doing just this with "the cross"?

Mind, I'm not telling you people are either of what I wrote above. I simply wrote you people sound like you are.

Irony, eh?

In the end, never forget that the simulator is something that You should use. Not It use you.

And with this, I'm out of this thread. For real.